LA Times FINALLY Acknowledges Violent Left-Wing Hate Groups Such As ‘Antifa’ – Then Says Free Speech Should Be Taken Away From Right

Well, it was an amazing thing.  After YEARS of unrelenting violent hatred being poured out on supporters of our current president, the Los Angeles Times FINALLY had an article specifically mentioning that there are left wing violent groups.

Mind you, as you read it, you already see the “Lost Cause” theory that the LA Times takes in covering their asses from the violence organized and perpetrated by their side:

Of the dozens of organizations that turned out for Sunday’s mass protest against racism here, one group was impossible to miss.

Its members dressed head to toe in black, with masked faces and some bearing pastel-painted riot shields that read “no hate.” These 100 or so militants billed themselves as a security force for progressive counter-protesters, vowing to protect them from far-right agitators.

But as the protest got underway, some of those in masks would resort to mob violence, attacking a small showing of supporters of President Trump and others they accused, sometimes inaccurately, of being white supremacists or Nazis.

The graphic videos of those attacks have spurred soul-searching within the leftist activist movement in the Bay Area and beyond. Emotions remain raw in the wake of this month’s white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va., which left one woman dead and dozens injured.

You see, on the “Lost Cause” theory, it wasn’t about slavery, or hate, or intolerance that motivated the Confederacy; no it was something NOBLE taking the form of an honorable struggle to protect the Southern way of life.  And in the same way, these groups like the Antifa aren’t inherently fascist entities that are trying to violently shut down the free speech of their opponents by showing up at virtually every single conservative rally; no, they are “protesting against racism.”  And I mean, that’s good, right?  Just as it is obviously good to wage “an honorable struggle for the Southern way of life.”  I mean, you’ve really got to pardon the violence because the noble cause is just so darn JUST.

But the YEARS of intentional ignorance and misrepresentation may finally be catching up to the left, it’s political party, it’s politicians, and its media organizations that have participated in the cover-up of their hate.

I mean, oh my goodness, the leftist violence is now so rabidly out of control that even Nancy Pelosi was forced to distance herself from it:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Tuesday condemned the ‘antifa’ protesters who clashed with President Trump supporters in Berkeley, Calif. Sunday.

“Our democracy has no room for inciting violence or endangering the public, no matter the ideology of those who commit such acts,” Pelosi said in a statement. “The violent actions of people calling themselves antifa in Berkeley this weekend deserve unequivocal condemnation, and the perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted.”

Pelosi’s statements follow clashes on Sunday between supporters of Trump and counterprotesters clashed in Berkeley, Sunday.

Arrests, pepper spray and smoke bombs were reportedly used on Sunday after violence broke out among a handful of protesters. More than 1,000 people had turned out on Sunday, and most protesters were peaceful.

Reports indicate 14 people were arrested during the rally. Several of those targeted for violence were known for pro-Trump or far-right views, according to the Los Angeles Times and SFGate.

The reason there is a [slightly] different framing of the leftist hate groups is that it is beyond obvious as you watch the scenes from conservative rallies from all over the country being violently broken up by masked leftists clad in black surrounding and viciously beating conservatives they are able to separate from their group that it’s only a matter of time before these liberal hate groups murder someone in a way that cannot be ignored or denied.  This has now already HAPPENED, mind you, but the avalanche or reality is becoming too overwhelming to ignore.  So they have to begin to distance themselves from it in foresight of what these groups are very obviously building toward.

I prefer this Washington Post headline:

Black-clad antifa members attack peaceful right-wing demonstrators in Berkeley

Because that’s what happened, without any nuance by simple factual, objective reporting.  And this has been happening over and over again throughout the entire presidential campaign.

Mind you, it was San Fran Nan who had actually called upon these same Antifa people she is now somewhat hypocritically – BUT FINALLY!!! – decrying when she called a conservative group Patriot Prayer’s Freedom Rally “a white supremacist rally” which literally BAITED the left to come to violently disrupt it “By Any Means Necessary.”

CBS Local in San Franscisco wrote (and asked) even prior to the rally:

Pelosi Dubs Patriot Prayer In San Francisco A ‘White Supremacist’ Rally
August 22, 2017 6:49 PM By Melissa Caen

SAN FRANCISCO (KPIX 5) — The group Patriot Prayer could get its permit any time now for Saturday’s planned rally at Crissy Field.

Patriot Prayer says they should officially get their permit for Saturday’s Freedom Rally sometime on Tuesday. Organizers have publicly distanced themselves from neo-Nazis, the KKK and violence.

But Nancy Pelosi and other leaders have denounced the event as a planned “white supremacist” rally.

Terms like neo-Nazi, white supremacist, white nationalist, alt-right, alt-left, fascist, Marxist, are loaded terms that are being used daily.

Pelosi had an event in San Francisco Tuesday and KPIX 5 political reporter Melissa Caen asked her about the labels, and asked her to explain her choice of words.

Conservative speakers say their free speech is being lumped together with bigoted and racist speech.

But Pelosi said Crissy Field is a special place.

“And now they’re going to give it as a venue to Nazis and white nationalists,” Pelosi said.

We looked at the Patriot Prayer group. Some of them are Trump supporters, but does that make them extremists?

So it’s kind of funny that the same Nancy Pelosi whose inciting “crying-fire-in-a-crowded-movie-theater” rhetoric brought these vicious thugs to come beat “white supremacists” would turn around and decry them doing what she incited them to do.

Here’s the truth reported by KTVU News San Francisco:

[Patriot Prayer organizer Joey] Gibson says he’s absolutely not a white supremacist. “I’m Japanese. We have three black speakers, a couple Hispanic, an atheist, a transsexual. We’re extremely diverse. It’s really irresponsible for the leaders to call me a white supremacist. It’s completely unfounded.”

But of course you only qualify as “black” if you live on the ideologically slave plantation of the liberal activists who ardently love the political party that kept their ancestors in slavery, who fought a vicious Civil War to keep their ancestors in the bondage of slavery, who organized the Ku Klux Klan after being defeated by the Republican Party to continue to the racist fight into the next century.  If you are “guilty” of free thought, these haters will come after you and attack you worse than they attack the whites they rabidly hate.

Joey Gibson is then asked, “So why do people make that claim, not only against you, but also those that are part of your group?”  He says, “I don’t know if she’s trying to stir up a riot, I’m not sure why she made that claim…  At the end of the day, you need specific examples of why anyone would say that I’m a white supremacist, because the things that I talk about, the things that I preach, has nothing to do with skin color, it has to do with what’s on the inside.”

Gibson is right claiming that Nancy Pelosi wanted a riot.  But this goes farther: the left that she is very much a part of is openly attempting to frame the narrative such that support for Donald Trump – the 45th President of the United States of America – IS an act of extremism and white supremacy and terrorism and every other hateful charge they can make.  Even that Trump is HITLER and “literally tried to kill our communities” in an act of GENOCIDE according to the racist organization “Black Lives Matter.”

And of course BLM has the video of Donald Trump with the death squads and standing over the mass graves.  Except, oh wait, these people are all whackjob evil psychotic demented demon-possessed and the only thing they are capable of seeing is their own racist hate.

The left and the “journalists” who are among its minions keeps calling “white supremacist” and “Nazi” groups “right-wing” because their intellectuals are following the exact same labelling approach the communists followed in the Nazi vs. Stalinist era:

“The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism.  Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism.  Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity.  [And in fact, Both movements were “revolutionary socialist ideologies.”  Going on,] Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie.  Both attacked the conservatives.  Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers.  Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty.  [And finally,] Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left.  They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].

Liberals like to parse “communism” as “Marxism” and then say that there’s a difference, and that “true communism” is somehow good, you should smell the dead rat that is their collectivist brain: because EVERY SINGLE TIME COMMUNISM HAS EVER BEEN TRIED, IT HAS BEEN TOTALITARIAN AND CRUSHED THE HUMAN SPIRIT.  EVERY SINGLE TIME.  But the left keeps trying to manufacture this “noble version of communism” and then contrast it to “Nazism.”  When by any practical historical realistic standard the two movements were virtually IDENTICAL: They were BOTH totalitarian; they were BOTH socialist; they were BOTH militaristic; they BOTH denied the basic freedoms of their peoples and had secret police to terrorize any kind of dissent; they were BOTH therefore determined to take all guns away from their subject peoples so they could not rise up; they were even BOTH anti-union in the sense that BOTH pursued the identical same policy of abolishing all unions and then creating one union that they had total control over.  They were BOTH the SAME.  The Nazis were, if anything, the “right-wing” of the very rabidly far radical LEFT.  And to the extent that communism was ”

The professors and academics who claim otherwise are MARXISTS.  They are merely following the exact same paradigm of the Marxist scholars of the past.  Even to the extent that the phrase “Workers of the world, unite!” reflected some false semblance of “proletarian internationalism,” Stalin proved that his communism was every bit as capable of being “nationalistic” as Hitler’s brand of socialism when he began to talk about the urgent need of his people to rise up to defend “Mother Russia.”

“Nazi” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party.”  If there was a “National Socialist American Workers Party” – and I submit that is the TRUE name of the Democratic Party today – it would be LIBERALS.  The ONLY meaningful difference between the two brands of socialism amounts to a still-meaningless distinction between communism confiscating all the means of production “in the name of the proletariat” but of course NEVER ACTUALLY SHARING ANYTHING WITH THE PEOPLE THEY OPPRESS versus Nazi fascism which allowed private ownership of industry on a self-serving basis but dictated what they would be required to produce.  Such that the State still held complete control of all the means of production in a government-controlled totalitarian society.

Did the communists hate the fascist and did the fascist hate the communist?  Yes.  But from what I see, the Bloods hate the Crips and the Crips hate the Bloods and there isn’t a dimes’ worth of difference between these vicious gangs (or how about the Mongols vs. the Outlaws or the Hells Angels vs. the Vagos or for that matter Barbie vs. Bratz dolls or Coke vs. Pepsi.  The fact that communists have always fought fascists doesn’t mean the two are opposite: it’s actually more proof that they are very nearly identical and compete for the same type of rabid haters.

In the same way, there is NOTHING racist about the “right-wing” versus the “left-wing.”  Both have their racists and if anything the left has a FAR MORE DOCUMENTED HISTORY OF RACISM THAN THE RIGHT EVER HAS OR EVER WILL HAVE.  Not when I can document that the Civil War was essentially a war over slavery between anti-slavery Republicans and pro-slavery Democrats.  Not when I can document that after the Civil War, the Ku Klux Klan was formed to terrorize and intimidate blacks and white Republicans alike.  Not when I can document that even a full sixty years after the Civil War, the Klan was so embedded into the Democratic Party machine that the 1924 Democratic National Convention was infamously called “Klanbake.”   Not when I can document that THE most infamously racist governors and officials in America such as George Wallace in the 1970s and Bull Conner were DEMOCRATS.  Not when I can document the self-acknowledged racist history of the unions that are at the forefront of Democratic Party machine.  Not when I can document that unions are STILL “fucking rabidly racist” today according to even senior-level union officials.  This slanderous tactic is again nothing but the product of communist scholarship falsely attributing whatever is “evil” with one’s ideological opponents even when it very clearly applies more to themselves than those they’re demonizing.

The history is overwhelming in establishing which party is “the party of hate and racism,” but Democrats are now actively destroying history – much the same way ISIS did in areas it controlled in their caliphate they were allowed to create in the Obama years – so that they can rewrite it.

So whatever is deemed to be evil or bad or wrong, Marxist scholars immediately claim ITS THE OTHER GUYS who are purely responsible for all of it.  And the left-wing mainstream-media gulps it down the way goldfish eagerly and immediately gulp down the spit of mean kids.

And so we see these charges of “hate” and “hate groups” being screamed by the left at the right WHEN THEY ARE THE HATERS AND THEY HAVE FAR AND AWAY THE MOST VICIOUS HATE GROUPS.  But again, going to the Los Angeles Times (just to keep shining a spotlight on how dishonest and hypocritical these perverters of genuine news truly are), from an article titled “Violence isn’t part of free speech – it’s a threat to it” on p. B-1 from August 22, 2017:

How do we protect ourselves from neo-Nazis armed with clubs, knives and shields?

Well, we can start by stripping them of their clubs, knives and shields. Plus helmets, pepper spray and any guns.

And take away the masks some wear to hide their identity from prosecutors.

The 1st Amendment does guarantee “freedom of speech” and “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Note a key operative word: “peaceably.” I’m no constitutional lawyer, but it does seem that anyone armed with a club, knife and shield isn’t intending to “peaceably” assemble.

In fact, since the deadly violence at a Charlottesville, Va., white supremacist rally, California affiliates of the American Civil Liberties Union have issued a strong statement qualifying their traditional defense of the 1st Amendment.

“The 1st Amendment does not protect people who incite or engage in violence,” the ACLU statement reads. “If white supremacists march into our towns armed to the teeth and with the intent to harm people, they are not engaging in activity protected by the United States Constitution.”

At no time does the leftist author of this bird-liner ever once acknowledge that there are ANY left wing hate groups.  And we now know for a FACT even from LA Times’ OWN REPORTING that the people wearing masks, who are pepper-spraying their opponents an yes, who are coming to events armed with shields, knives, clubs, bike locks, bottles of urine, rocks, incendiary devices, and yes even guns are almost ECLUSIVELY ALL FROM THE LEFT.  And again, I can document that even from the slanted LA Time’s OWN REPORTING now.  As Redneck Revolt puts it: “You know, if you keep going further left, eventually, you go left enough to get your guns back.”  Not that the damn LA Times would ever report that little factoid.

But what do these dishonest “perverters” (because that’s what journalists are these days, people who pervert the truth) “report”???  They blame the side that are largely the VICTIMS of their side’s violence.  Which by the way was a very successful Nazi tactic.  George Skelton is a Nazi.  The LA Times is a Nazi newspaper.  They are not reporters but perverters.  They “report” fake news because they dishonestly “report” only those “facts” that are cherry-picked to support their agenda.  Okay?

We need to understand how the progressive left thinks in purely pragmatic rather than moral terms.  A piece from the LA Times on the ACLU sheds much light:

The American Civil Liberties Union has been much scrutinized since its decision to represent white supremacists in their quest to march in Charlottesville, Va. Board members have resigned and allies have declared that the ACLU, at long last, has gone too far. In the aftermath, the ACLU of California issued an equivocal statement, endorsed by the national ACLU, clarifying that the 1st Amendment “does not protect people who incite or engage in violence” but reiterating the organization’s complete support for “freedom of speech and expression.

Commentators have rightly observed that the ACLU has defended far-right speech since its founding, despite fierce criticism. But there is a common and mistaken premise in this analysis. It assumes that the organization has always believed, as it does today, that “freedom of expression is an end in itself.” In reality, the early ACLU viewed free speech as a tool of social justice, suited to particular purposes under particular conditions.

To correct the prevailing misconception, we need to look back to the 1930s, when economic desperation was fueling a battle between reactionary impulses and radical aspirations, and Nazis first appeared on American streets. Even as American fascists appealed to anti-Semitism and white privilege, the ACLU fought for their right to hold rallies. Although it did not oppose regulations against armed marches, it insisted that “the right to parade,” even “in brown shirts with swastikas,” should “never be denied.”

Why did the ACLU defend Nazis when they were terrorizing Germany and their virulence was painfully apparent? As the organization acknowledged in its pamphlet on Nazi speech, it was a “practical tactic” as much as an “abstract principle.”

A core contingent of the ACLU leadership hoped that an expansive interpretation of the 1st Amendment could pave the way to fundamental economic change, above all through the movement to organize America’s workers. The organization’s founders described themselves as “partisans of labor.” And they understood that the courts, which historically were hostile to unions, were disinclined to distinguish between the intimidation posed by Nazis marching in uniform and the intimidation posed by workers on a picket line.

You can readily see how rabidly biased the people “scrutinizing” the ACLU truly are given the fact that they never “scrutinized” them for thousands of OTHER incredibly vile policies and actions that have oppressed Christians and conservatives in mostly small towns that couldn’t afford to fight these lawthugs.  But here we get to a more important point: why did the ACLU support free speech that was openly hostile to freedom on the part of Nazis?  Because they knew that their own SIDE was every bit as vile and obnoxious as the Nazis and reasonable people would immediately comprehend that union thug violence and Nazi thug violence beat and battered and bruised equally the same.  And since union thug violence was at the very core of the ACLU mission, well, they sided with the violent to protect and promote their own brand of violence.

So it’s important to understand that this “support for free speech” was NEVER something the left actually believed in.  NEVER!!!  These fascists always exploited it as a means to an end with their end being the taking away of free speech for anyone who disagreed with them.  FACT.  And you’ll see that below, again, reported by the “esteemed newspaper” the LA Times.

The left has always been violent.  The Civil War was an act of Democratic Party violence.  The Ku Klux Klan that emerged after the Democrats lost the Civil War was an act of Democratic Party violence.  Just as the unions have been the violent thug arms of the Democratic Party machine until the Occupy Wall Street Movement, Black Lives Matter and now violent leftist groups such as Antifa, the anarchists, Redneck Revolt, By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) and many others are carrying out the same legacy of hate from the same rabid species of leftism.

Given the hate rhetoric like this that comes from the left at the very highest Democratic Party levels and is espoused by organizations such as BLM that are accorded legitimacy by both the Democratic Party and the mainstream media that serves as their propaganda wing, you shouldn’t be surprised one bit when leftists start thinking in terms of “By Any Means Necessary” to violently attack the people their leaders decry as Hitler-evil mass-murderers

“White nationalists” of course were attacked for a man driving his car into a crowd and killing one woman at an event to protest the removal of Confederate statues.  The mainstream media conveniently failed to remember the avowed black nationalist who participated in a Black Lives Matter event (you know, the kind where the mob masses are organized to chant, “What do we want?” “Dead cops!”  When do we want it?  “NOW!” over and over and over again) and assassinated five police officers and specifically attempted to target white police officers.

They also chanted stuff like “Whose streets? OUR streets!”  “No justice, no peace, no racist police!”  “How to you spell racist? N-Y-P-D!”  Obama didn’t decry it.  Not at all.

The assassination killing of NYPD officers Raphael Ramos and Wenjian Liu took place only days after this BLM chant was caught on tape at a BLM-organized event.  The assassination murders of the five police in Dallas followed.

Obama didn’t call out black hate before or after the Dallas racist massacre of police officers; Obama didn’t even MENTION black hate or leftwing hate groups or the leftwing violence those leftwing hate groups were continually committing.  Obama decried the liberal bogeyman of guns in a blatantly partisan and biased statement that the media refused to criticize at the time or remember afterward when they were attacking Donald Trump with far less grounds to do so.

No, the left spouted crap like this:

They speak to a raw anger at a system those activists want changed. But they can’t be called an endorsement for killing cops.

And they said stuff like “The hateful outrage of a few does not represent the views of the vast majority of sincere demonstrators.”  That sort of thing.

I call it “crap” because they refuse to give the other side anything even close to the same generous assumption that deep down, they’re just good folk who want good things for their families.  Rather it’s “Our haters are wonderful but your haters are evil and you’re evil for tolerating your haters even though we’re obviously not evil for tolerating our haters.”

At the Charlottesville rally where we had the car-ramming incident – which for the record I decry as a “terrorist attack” because unlike the left I am capable of seeing reality – the left had shown up and for TWO HOURS were assaulting and beating the so-called “right-wing” demonstrators.  And I simply point out that it is highly likely that the car-ramming was not a planned attack, but rather a reaction against the violence that the driver saw being unleashed against his side while the police stood by and did nothing to protect them.  The police – under the control of a very leftist mayor – literally facilitated the climate for violence and basically lit the match when they actually funneled the white nationalists directly into the left wing mobs which were shockingly in positions they were specifically supposed to be banned from holding.  And then after it was totally out of control and a violent leftist mob was all around, this:

Attendees began attempting to leave via exits 1 & 2 and were set upon by antifa as they attempted to do so.

They weren’t even allowed to leave without having to go through a gauntlet of physical beating with masked thugs armed with sticks and shields.

It looks like the left was hoping for what happened.

That isn’t “free speech.”  And we’re seeing it again and again and again: the police are casually stepping back and allowing masked goons to attack people.

The left wants to make this so damn confusing, but two things are crystal clear:

#1. Anyone wearing any kind of mask at a public demonstration ought to be immediately cited and/or arrested.  I don’t care if they are KKK or Antifa or Barney the Dinosaur.  The ONLY reason you are wearing a mask to a public demonstration is because you are planning to do something that you don’t want to be recognized and prosecuted for having done.  And frankly the fact that the police are not arresting people for wearing masks BEFORE the violence amounts to proof that the leftist police in leftist cities are collaborating before the fact with the violent antifa thugs.  Because any fool ought to know what these people are planning to do the moment they show up.

#2.  If one group – irregardless of their political/social views – obtains a legal permit to hold a demonstration or rally, and another group representing a different view shows up without a permit to confront that group, then the group without the permit is to be held responsible for the ensuing violence.  There should be no such thing as the “counterprotestor,” but rather any and all protests and demonstrations – “counter-” or otherwise – should be required to obtain permits and demonstrate solely within the confines of their permitted area.  And any “demonstrator” who goes outside his/her permitted area to confront demonstrators within their own permitted area is to be immediately arrested for fomenting or inciting riot.

These two principles would apply to all demonstrators and to all demonstrations from all groups representing all sides.  It would be fair to all.  But we don’t have that.

If you just accept these two commonsense principles, it is then beyond-obvious that the LEFT is ENTIRELY responsible for ALL the violence that we are seeing.  Because no, it is NOT the so-called “rightwing” that is showing up at leftist demonstrations and rallies; it is always the OTHER WAY AROUND with violent leftists showing up armed with shields, weapons and masks to attack the other side.

We see that in every single case, liberals are so rabidly intolerant of the 1st Amendment and the free speech that it guarantees, that they are determined to shut it down “By Any Means Necessary” which clearly includes violence.

Instead, what do we see?

We see this kind of crap which the print edition of the Los Angeles Times (p. B-1 for Wednesday, August 30, 2017) titled, “Free speech at what cost?:  After ‘antifa’ violence in Berkeley, city debates whether conservative firebrands are welcome“:

Violence over this weekend by left-wing “antifa” activists in Berkeley has opened another chapter in the debate at the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement over UC Berkeley’s plan to host several conservative firebrands next month.

University officials have vowed to allow speakers, including conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, to come even under the threat of violence, which has occurred at Berkeley and other universities earlier this year.

Some city leaders are becoming increasingly wary, fearing a repeat of Sunday’s clashes in which the protesters, wearing black with their faces covered, attacked a small showing of supporters of President Trump and others they accused, sometimes inaccurately, of being white supremacists or Nazis.

“We don’t want the moral, psychological and fiscal expense of having these agents of hate coming to our town,” said Berkeley City Councilman Ben Bartlett. “We know the contest of ideas is at the very heart of freedom, but at the same time when the ideas are certain to cause bloodshed I’m inclined to err on the side of protecting the population, and I say that with a heavy heart.”

Councilwoman Cheryl Davila also opposed the appearance by the conservative speakers, adding: “I don’t appreciate that there are racists coming to UC Berkeley to spew hate.”

Yep.  The ACLU project to “protect free speech” can be cancelled now.  Only the left should have the freedom to speak.  And the freedom to violently riot, of course.  And we’ll just blame everything we do on the other side.  Because if they didn’t speak, we liberals would bash them in the face.  It’s really entirely their fault we beat them.

Ah, Nazi thought is so alive and so well in liberalism.

Now, I have already shown you above that this event was marred by violent leftists attacking peaceful conservatives.  I have already shown you how Democrats have repeatedly slandered conservatives by falsely labelling them as “white supremacist” or “Nazi” when they had nothing whatsoever to do with either label.

And so here is the logic flow: “Liberals are so sick, so demented, so psychologically-unhinged, so depraved and so evil that if conservatives are allowed to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed free speech and free-assembly rights, the demons screaming in the collectivist souls of the left will force them to commit violent mayhem.  And so we must banish conservative speech that evil may triumph.”

When liberals threaten violence or commit violence, they should be ARRESTED AND PROSECUTED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW.  Or there IS no law.

And I state this as a categorical fact: if you are a Democrat, YOU are the Nazi.  Because when Hitler was rising to power, his homosexual-filled SA Brownshirt thugs (and see also here because the mindset is just as true now as it was in the 1930s) did EXACTLY WHAT YOUR SIDE IS VIOLENTLY DOING NOW ON A DAILY BASIS.  If you are a Democrat, YOU are a Nazi, because when Hitler assumed power, he banned the “other side” from having any right to any kind of protest to his totalitarian power EXACTLY AS YOUR PARTY’S OFFICIALS AND BUREAUCRATS ARE TRYING TO DO NOW.

 

 

 

 

What Goes Around Comes Around, Democrats: And If You Had Any Decency Or Wisdom, You’d Already Have Learned That By Now

How are Democrats fascist?  Let me count the ways:

During the campaign we had violent Democrat Brownshirt-style thugs (and see here) with ties to both Obama and to Obama’s White House and to Hillary Clinton (and see here and here) physically attacking and beating Republicans who came to a free-speech rally to support the candidate that our Constitution enshrines as their right.  Not that Democrats have any more respect for the Constitution than roaches have for it.  Democrats then literally violently rioted, with more than 200 people charged with RIOTING in Washington D.C. on inauguration day because Donald Trump was elected president and butthurt Democrats didn’t like it.  You had Democrats saying they didn’t regard President Trump as “legitimate” and seventy elected Democrats – well over a third of their number in the House – refused to acknowledge the peaceful transfer of power and instead boycotted the inauguration.  Then Democrats took the unprecedented and incredibly childish step of boycotting hearings – refusing to show up and do their damn jobs – as a butthurt tactic to prevent government from functioning when they used to tell us that anything that kept government from functioning was “terrorist.”  We had leftist women who wanted to murder their own children and who rabidly hated Donald Trump march on Washington the very next day.  We’ve had vicious riots in cities and in universities such as leftist Berkeley where Democrats – and pardon me for just calling them rabidly intolerant fascists because that’s exactly what they are – couldn’t handle the right of someone to speak who thought differently from the Stalinists who violently screamed him down.

And Democrats are rabidly, hatefully, viciously boycotting ANY business that believes it has any freedom of speech or the right to creativity whatsoever: not only if you support Donald Trump, but if you simply don’t adequately demonize Donald Trump, Democrats will start hatefully boycotting you and trying to take American workers’ jobs away from them by shutting down or for that matter burning down the business that hired them.  So just the other day we had a brand new “firestorm” of hate and vicious, treasonous job-destruction in the form of a boycott of Under Armour because the CEO likes the business climate he’s seeing.

And ANY business that is like the vast majority of investors – pushing the DOW to historic highs never before seen during Obama’s regime – who appreciates a good business climate will be the target of rabid leftist hate.  The employees of those businesses, their families, their children, will all be the targets of rabid leftist hate.

This is vindictively in-American, anti-American, fascist.  Until the time when the Elizabeth Warrens and the Barack Obamas took over the Democrat Party, we could agree to disagree and the best business model at the best price won.  But there is a spirit of hate that basically says “Death to America!” and that spirit is the spirit of the Democrat Party today.

Three weeks after Trump was sworn in – you know, as fascists also known as “Democrats” rioted – the shrinking Democrat Senate has done everything possible in its fascist collectivist butthurt to do everything imaginable and unimaginable to stall Trump’s cabinet  from being allowed to take office and do their jobs in a manner that can only be described as “historic.”  Among the recent vile Democrat Party tactics, far leftist darling Elizabeth Warren – a dishonest woman who falsely claimed that she was an American Indian in order to falsely receive benefits from her false status – violated forever all pretense of Senate decorum that allows respectful debate by launching a firestorm of hate invective until she was rightly shut the hell up.  She tried to attack a sitting Senator by reading a letter in spite of a rule that reads:

Rule 19 states the following: “No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.”

It’s a pretty crystal-clear rule.  Don’t talk ugly about your fellow Senator so we can keep a collegial climate and work together.  And yes, you fake, dishonest Pocahontas, the rule even applies when the hateful words impugning the motive of a Senator come from somebody with the last name of “King” who wrote a fundraising letter for the DNC.  It frankly doesn’t MATTER who wrote the damn letter, you cannot read it on the Senate floor if it “directly or indirectly” ascribes any motive or conduct unworthy of a Senator.  Which that fundraising letter from that leftist widow very clearly does.

The Senate has that rule unless we instead want to have fistfights and chairs thrown on the Senate floor like the socialist banana republics that we sometimes see on TV.  I’ve got an idea: why not have Republicans read from the Bible proving that everything Democrats do is godless and vile and wicked and an abomination and a detestable act and that Democrats are demanding the full wrath of God on this nation?  Did Republicans do that when they were destroyed by Obama’s victory?  No.  Did they EVER do ANY of the above?  No.

Amazingly, Democrats depict themselves as the “victims” of “intolerance” and “hate” when they are by far and away THE most hateful bugs in America today.

And so, amazingly, fake Pocahontas is now a “victim” because she tried to viciously attack the character of somebody else in a manner that ought to have her disbarred from the Senate and mean meanies who don’t want the Senate to degenerate into total chaos and anarchy stopped her from doing it.

Democrats in the Senate and in the House DO want the Senate floor to become a fight pit.  And I can state that as a categorical fact simply because that is precisely what they have intentionally “fundamentally transformed” America into through their community organizing tactics to unleash demonstration after demonstration, boycott after boycott, riot after riot.

I’ve pointed out more than once that I actually PREDICTED the rise of a candidate like Donald Trump and accurately explained the reasons why there would be so much anger in response to the truly fascist Barack Obama presidency:

Obama’s strategy is to set aside and flatly ignore the law for his own political benefit.  Every American who is not deeply troubled by that – troubled enough to not vote for this fascist – is UN-American.

What Obama has done is provide an example of out-and-out lawlessness on the part of the president of the United States.  And when we get a hard-core right wing president the way Obama has been a hard-core left wing president, Obama and the Democrat Party and all of those who voted for Obama and the Democrat Party will be entirely to blame for that president and his extremist actions.  You mark my words.  Because what goes around comes around, and if a Democrat can set aside the law the way Obama has now repeatedly done, well, guess who’s going to be stomping on your necks under your own president’s prior justification???  Conservatives are rising up in a spirit of righteous outrage.  You have repeatedly slapped us in the face through your messiah Obama, and the time is coming when we’re going to punch you hard in the nose and then keep on punching.  And when that day comes, liberals, look to yourselves for blame. — My words on June 18, 2012

Don’t blame anyone but YOURSELVES and YOUR OWN DEMOCRATIC PARTY for the rise of Donald Trump, Democrats.  YOU did this.  YOU poisoned the well.  You ALONE and NO ONE BUT YOU.

We do we have President Trump?  Because you fascists allowed a fascist to act like a damn fascist for eight miserable years.  And people like me kept warning people like you that there would be CONSEQUENCES for what you were doing.  And then people like me promised you how you would get yours for what you had done before this election that was so damn surprising to you.

You should have learned that what comes around, goes around, fascists.  But you clearly didn’t.

Now you’re hanging yourselves on your own damn petards over and over and over again.  Such as when you fascists who illegitimately call yourselves “Democrats” as if you give one flying DAMN about “democracy” imposed the nuclear option to shove whatever the hell you fascists wanted down our throats.

The Senate is now firmly in Republican hands (after disgraceful Democrats were caught being evil maybe a million times too often).  But when Democrats owned the Senate, they shoved their crap right down the Republicans’ throats and changed the damn Senate rules to do it with a process that was so toxic to the Constitution that it was called “the nuclear option.”

On November 21, 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared that “unbelievable, unprecedented obstruction” by Republican filibusters had made the confirmation process “completely unworkable.”^[1] As a result, he said, Democrats were forced to eliminate virtually all nomination filibusters. […]

For nearly all of its history, proceeding to a final vote on a matter before the Senate required a supermajority.

The nuclear option is every bit as good for the goose as it is for the gander, demon-possessed ones.

And so guess who gets to use it now?

There are consequences for what you did.  There OUGHT to be consequences for what you did.

You should have learned that what comes around goes around, you fascists.

Oh, there’s more than that, such as prominent Democrats in our society dreaming out loud of bombing the [Trump] White House and calling for a military coup.  I actually remember when Democrats literally called Republicans “terrorists” because we didn’t vote the way Democrats wanted them to vote.

Here’s what Hillary Clinton said about Republicans daring to do anything whatsoever when Obama was president and Democrats held the House and Senate:

“We cannot let a minority of people, and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people, hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.”

They called us “terrorists” a whole bunch of times when it’s ridiculously easy to prove we didn’t do a tiny FRACTION of what they are doing now.  Now we start to see what actual “terrorists” really look like: just look in a damn mirror, Democrat.

And only now do I get to our judges: read the actual text of the law that Donald Trump lawfully and legally acted upon:

Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Oh, and there’s this:

Here is the pertinent law, Title 8, Chapter 12, US Code 1182, courtesy of Cornell University Law’s website:

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

Now how hard is that to understand?

It’s not just that the law is on Trump’s side; IT’S THAT THE LAW IS TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY ON TRUMP’S SIDE.

And so we have the most leftist District Court in the United States now deciding whether to uphold the injunction who are acting NOT AS JUDGES but as political ideologues imposing their own political agenda and calling it “the law.”  This law has been around since my 80 year-old parents were teen-agers.  Obama invoked this identical same policy with Iraqi refugees and again only recently to do to Cuban refugees – and did hypocrite Democrats riot with ‘Stop the hate’ signs THEN? – what Trump wants to temporarily do to seven countries that the Obama administration itself identified as having the most out-of-control and impossible-to-vet status of all countries on earth.

Is this a “Muslim ban” as our leftist newspapers and media keep claiming?  According even to the Trump-haters, fully 85% of all Muslims can freely come into the United States because the vast majority of Muslims on planet earth do not live in those seven countries.

The “judge” that imposed his stay on the Trump policy was FACTUALLY WRONG about the most major element of his ruling: not that Democrats give one flying damn about the fact that they are factually wrong and full of lies.

WASHINGTON — “The federal judge who halted President Donald Trump’s travel ban was wrong in stating that no one from the seven countries targeted in Trump’s order has been arrested for extremism in the United States since the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Just last October, an Iraqi refugee living in Texas pleaded guilty to attempting to provide support to the Islamic State group, accused of taking tactical training and wanting to blow himself up in an act of martyrdom. In November, a Somali refugee injured 11 in a car-and-knife attack at Ohio State University, and he surely would have been arrested had he not been killed by an officer.”

You moral roaches have NO RIGHT to do what your judges are doing.  In Arizona we settled that, like it or not, it is the President of the United States who gets to determine the shape of our immigration system.  the only difference there was that Arizona was actually only calling on Obama to enforce the laws of the United States and Obama was refusing to do so; here Donald Trump is lawfully using the authority that the laws of the United States give him.  But the same Democrats who told us that immigration was up to the President now say the opposite.

Lawyer and journalist Gregg Jarrett says that the law is very clearly entirely on Trump’s side and that ultimately Trump will prevail as this reaches a court capable of voting on the actual merits of the law rather than imposing their rabid judicial ideology onto the law rather than any legitimate interpretation of the law, the separation of powers, or the Constitution that these liberal judges falsely and deceitfully took an oath to uphold.

I am so beyond sick of this two-standards approach to the Constitution and to “judges”: when Obama imposed his ObamaCare, Justice Roberts literally re-wrote the damn ObamaCare law to make it “constitutional,” steadfastly and studiously ignoring what Obama had actually said prior to the passage of the law that clearly made it rabidly UNconstitutional.  And now we have these leftist pseudo-judges doing the precise-damn-OPPOSITE and citing campaign rhetoric that has virtually NOTHING to do with the actual policy that Trump imposed as president as the grounds for striking down the commander-in-chief.

What I am saying here is what Justice Antonin Scalia warned a leftist pseudo-intellectual once:

He added that the role of a Supreme Court justice should be interpreting the law, not inventing it.

“Whether it’s good or bad is not my job. My job is simply to say if those things you find desirable are contained in the Constitution,” he said.

Discussing pro-abortion judges who created a right to abortion, Scalia warned her, “Someday, you’re going to get a very conservative Supreme Court and regret that approach.”

You are about to get precisely what Scalia warned you about, Democrat.  You are about to get the hell you have tried to impose on us for DECADES now: right wing judges who read their own intent into the law without giving a flying damn what our Constitution says or what our founding fathers meant when they said it.  You are going to get judges whose reasoning process is “I’m a judge, and therefore whatever the hell I want to do must be the law.”  And they’re going to impose “law” on you the way you “living, breathing document” ideologues imposed pseudo “law” on US regardless of what the law or the Constitution actually was.

If YOU get to play games with the Constitution and impose your policy as law, then WE get to play games with the Constitution and impose OUR policy as “law.”  And if YOU are allowed to nominate judges who will “interpret” the law however the hell they want to, then WE get to nominate judges who will interpret the law however the hell THEY want to.

You’re going to be hung on your own petards.  Because what comes around ultimately goes around, you fascists.

The equivalent of what the left has done by allowing “judges” to hold a “living, breathing document” view of the Constitution that enables them to read their own “penumbras and emanations” into the law and impose their political goals and policy agendas as if they were “constitutional” is this: suppose we have a football game, and my side gets to use fully automatic assault weapons against your side.  You use your football skills and I’ll use my weapons and let’s play ball and see who wins.  If we win, we get a reprieve from fascist judicial activism; if you win you get to impose your rabid ideology upon us as if it were “the law.”

I noted an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times today talking about how both sides engage in hypocrisy.  And that’s true, much the way it is true that during World War II both sides engaged in killing.  But one side was so over the top evil with killing that it was dishonest to create a false moral equivalence; and in the same way one side (the Democrats) are so over the top HYPOCRITE that it is immoral to say that both sides do it.  The editorial itself – hypocritically entitled “Beyond hypocrisy” in the print edition – is a pile of leftist drivel and from my point of view isn’t worth reading because the author focuses on the evils of the right while steadfastly refusing to acknowledge his ideology’s own role in creating “nihilism” that he is so fearful of.  But it does come to a conclusion that I as a last days, evangelical, Bible-believing fundamentalist Christian, completely affirm: we’re heading toward total nihilism as a nation and that will guarantee our bitter, painful end.

Let me explain what is going on right now, as we speak: we cannot possibly endure as a society or a civilization because there are these people called “Democrats” who cannot abide either civil society or civilization itself.  Nihilism is our only possible option if Democrats are allowed to exist.

It’s a simple thesis to prove: what if REPUBLICANS had rioted the day Obama was inaugurated?  What if seventy REPUBLICANS had boycotted the inauguration – the peaceful transition of power – of Obama?  What if a million Republican right wingers had demonstrated the day after Obama was inaugurated and loudly demanded that Obama not be allowed to do what he had just won election campaigning to do?  What if REPUBLICANS hijacked journalism and the university system the way the left has done and started allowing students to violently riot whenever a pro-Democrat speaker came to the school?  What if Arizona REPUBLICANS had defied Obama and went forward with their own immigration solution in a militant way the way most Democrat-governed states are doing now???

We would have collapsed into a bloodbath of rioting.  I mean, we never did anything even CLOSE to what you did and your side is collapsing into a bloodbath of rioting anyway.  Just imagine if we acted the way you’re acting.  We would have pitched, vicious battles in the streets.

Let me use another analogy I’ve used a couple times before: World War I.  The wicked WWI Axis powers from which Nazism ultimately spawned from were the first to use total war and bomb civilian population centers and they were the first to use poison gas on Allied soldiers.  Do you know what stopped them?  The Allies fought back the same damn way until the Axis asked for a return to more civilized warfare.

The ONLY way to defeat your enemy is to be willing to fight with that enemy on that enemy’s terms.  Had the Allies not responded in kind when their cities were being bombed by Zeppelins and their soldiers were being hideously killed and disfigured by poison gas attacks they would have surely lost the war.  But they fought back using the same tactics.

And they continued to do so until their wicked German enemies asked for a truce on those fronts.

If Republicans aren’t willing to resort to violent riots and mass demonstrations and a rabid refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the next Democrat to become president, we will lose.  Because this is a bitter war to the end, now.  That is beyond obvious.  If we don’t start shoving the most rabid right wingers down the collectivist throats of the Democrats who haven’t nominated a single judge who actually believed in the Constitution as our founding fathers envisioned it for nearly a hundred years, we will lose.  And we will ultimately lose everything – including our very lives – because the “Constitution” only means whatever is convenient for Democrats to believe at any given moment according to their own view of it.  And I believe I have demonstrated that Democrats today are rabid, vile, vicious, violent fascists today.  And if we don’t punch them so hard in the face it is beyond unreal, we won’t get another chance.  Because they are already showing right now, today, that they are going to come at us with a spirit of rabid, hysterical viciousness when the very first chance they get.  And Republicans had better be willing to fight back with everything they have if they value their children’s lives.  I’m telling you.

If you have ever voted Republican in your life, you need to join in EVERY SINGLE BOYCOTT of EVERY business that has EVER said anything critical of Trump or of conservative pro-growth policies.  You need to fight back, or you need to die.  Because die you will.

But we won’t do it.  Because we have something Democrats don’t have: we have morality, integrity, restraint.  The Democrats who rabidly hate God and believe in the religion of evolution have no restraint simply because just what the hell morally disqualifies somebody from being an atheist?  And the answer is ‘NOTHING’.

And so as much of a piece of crap as Jacob T. Levy’s “Beyond hypocrisy” editorial is, I agree with him that what he is saying is exactly what is going to happen in the United States.  Only it’s going to happen because enraged Republicans are finally ultimately going to remember every vile Democrat roach trick and perform it themselves when the tables turn again.  WE’RE going to be the ones who will steadfastly refuse to recognize the “legitimacy” of a Democrat president; WE’RE going to be the ones violently rioting and showing up in giant mass demonstrations.  WE’RE going to be the ones using every single procedural gimmick of government to shut down the president’s and the ruling party’s ability to govern.  Why will we do that?  BECAUSE DEMOCRATS DID IT AND WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND.

Only by then it will be truly too late.  And our nation collapsed.  Jesus said that race would rise against race in the last days.  He also said the end would come upon us like birth pangs upon a woman, getting worse and worse until “the end” is born and devours us by the billions.  We’re seeing the birth pangs of it now.  Just as we’re seeing the “terrible times” that 2 Timothy chapter 3 said were coming as a truly toxic and vile last generation arose.  And we’re seeing that generation now.  The Antichrist of Revelation is just around the corner.

It’s amazing how the godless left and the religious right both agree: the end is coming.  And it’s coming on us FAST.  Welcome to what my fundamentalist Christian friends and I have been predicting for quite a while now as a result of our literal interpretation of what Jesus and the Bible said was coming.

And when it hits it will hit with the force of a sledge-hammer swung by a giant on an exposed and unsuspecting human face.

The funny thing is that, when the Antichrist comes, Democrats will be adoringly singing the man’s praises.  Because they desperately yearn for the poison the ultimate Government-as-God human leader will offer.

Just like eight years ago when Obama was spouting sewage like, “I won, and elections have consequences,” you Democrats have a right and a responsibility and a damn DUTY to put an END to the vile crap your party that you keep voting for is dumping on our culture and our nation right now.

But you won’t do it.

Which is why the beast is coming.

 

 

In Ferguson, Liberals Carry Out The Glorious Tradition (That Led To The Third Reich) As They Once Again Reveal Their Fascist Nature

I had to laugh at the so-called “leaders” as they called for peace from both sides of the Ferguson situation.  You know, like conservatives were getting ready to riot if the officer WAS indicted.

No, the only way there would have been any riots had the grand jury in Ferguson returned an indictment against Officer Darren Wilson would have been the kind of rioting you see when a professional team wins a national title and its own residents tear their own city apart in riotous celebration.

There’s only ONE side that riots; and it’s ALWAYS the SAME side: the left.

Liberals are the people who keep revealing the fascist nature of their wicked hearts over and over and over again.

Conservatives accept the rule of law even when – and under tyrant Obama it pretty much always does – it goes against them.

We learn all the lies and false reports liberals provided in trying to frame Officer Darren Wilson.  Liberals don’t give a damn about the truth.  We learn that the rioters peeled off to start burning and looting the MOMENT they heard the prosecutor say there wouldn’t be an indictment; you know, as opposed to listening for the evidence.  Because liberals don’t need evidence.

Liberals are people who want more and more and bigger and bigger and increasingly fascist government.  But they will riot and burn and loot the moment that more and bigger fascist government doesn’t kowtow to the fascist standard of the political correctness that they’ve fabricated.

Where are all the black civil rights leaders – the Al Sharptons and the Jesse Jacksons – who pledged that they were going to be in Ferguson after the verdict?  Where are they now?  They fanned the flames of race-baiting hate and now they move to the next Ferguson to encourage the next black community to burn down THEIR city, that’s where they are.

The profiteer off of the race-baiting division they create and then they move on to let loose the dogs of war they unmuzzled and unleashed on any given community.

We found that a good half dozen black witnesses had the decency to tell the truth about what they saw on that street where Officer Darren Wilson fatally shot a young black thug who – after strong-arm robbing a store and brutally shoving aside the owner who was trying to protect his merchandise, after strolling down the middle of the street ad blocking traffic like he owned the planet, after he assaulted the officer in his own vehicle and punched him in the face – shot the punk as he tried to charge the officer again.

But the testimony of decent black people doesn’t matter to the left any more than all those decent black-owned businesses matter to them.

Truth doesn’t matter to them.

All that matters to them is that they didn’t get exactly what they want and so they had a rage tantrum.

Which is basically what happened when Obama signed his executive order on illegal immigration after an election didn’t go his way.

Liberals are the people whom St. Paul prophetically warned us would characterize a wicked, toxic world just before it welcomed and worshiped the ultimate Big Government dictator:

The Dangers of the Last Days

3 You should know this, Timothy, that in the last days there will be very difficult times. ² For people will love only themselves and their money. They will be boastful and proud, scoffing at God, disobedient to their parents, and ungrateful. They will consider nothing sacred. ³ They will be unloving and unforgiving; they will slander others and have no self-control. They will be cruel and hate what is good. ⁴ They will betray their friends, be reckless, be puffed up with pride, and love pleasure rather than God. ⁵ They will act religious, but they will reject the power that could make them godly. Stay away from people like that! — 2 Timothy 3:1-5New Living Translation (NLT)

That’s the liberalism of today’s left to a “T”.

Why is this terminal generation so evil?  The answer in one word: Democrats:

Missouri Democratic state senator and University City school board member Maria Chappelle-Nadal said on MSNBC that her school district had taken steps to prepare their students to protest in the wake of the Ferguson grand jury decision…

So Democrat Party “gubmint skool” was dutifully teaching their pupils how to burn and loot.

Our little darlings are being indoctrinated by Democrats as to how to deal with cops (i.e., gestapo):

Kate Briquelet reports in the NY Post that Principal Mark Federman of East Side Community HS has invited the New York Civil Liberties Union to give a two-day training session to 450 students on interacting with police. “We’re not going to candy-coat things — we have a problem in our city that’s affecting young men of color and all of our students,” says Federman. “It’s not about the police being bad. This isn’t anti-police as much as it’s pro-young people … It’s about what to do when kids are put in a position where they feel powerless and uncomfortable.” The hourlong workshops — held in small classroom sessions during advisory periods — focused on the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk program and how to exercise Fourth Amendment rights when being stopped and questioned in a car or at home.

Some law-enforcement experts say the NYCLU is going beyond civics lessons and doling out criminal-defense advice. “It’s unlikely that a high school student would come away with any other conclusion than the police are a fearful group to be avoided at all costs,” says Eugene O’Donnell, a former police officer and professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

Ivy League universities are holding mock funerals for Michael Brown, because everything these perverted institutions that were originally dedicated to the advance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ before they were hijacked by liberals DO is a mockery today.  They are saying that police are an occupying force in black communities.  You know, like the 97% of all blacks who are killed by other blacks when they aren’t burning and looting somewhere like Ferguson wouldn’t happen if the police just abandoned these communities instead of policing them.

St. Paul may as well have written, “In the last days, Democrats will come…”

And when the beast issues his executive order that every single human being will have to take a mark on his or her left hand or on their foreheads in order to buy or sell – in other words, when the Democrat Party finally fulfills their dream of taking over every aspect of the economy and thus seizing all power – liberals will cheer and worship their Dear Leader who will be their god.

But it will be God who burns and loots them forever and ever as He sends these people who murdered sixty million babies and worshiped homosexual sodomy to the eternal riot of hell.

Which is why we don’t have to riot, we who love God; because unlike the liberals, we have a God who will win in the end and Who will throw the human government liberals worship right into hell with them.

I Keep Pointing It Out: The ESSENTIAL Nature Of Homosexual Liberalism Is Pure Rabid FASCISM. And Here It Is Again…

Let me point out that these homosexuals are Nazis.  And I mean that LITERALLY, given the historic connection between the rise of Nazism and homosexuality and that Nazism would not have risen had it NOT BEEN for homosexuals who served as Hitler’s brownshirted stormtrooper thugs and beat down the opposition.

And nothing has changed.  Homosexuals are every bit as violent and as hateful as ever.  Look at the history of the “gay rights” movement.  Their “movement” began with violence at Stonewall and the White Night riots.  Today our prisons are CLOGGED with violent and vicious homosexuals who rape one another every chance they get.  And homosexual domestic violence is FAR higher than among heterosexual couples.  Even studies that are clearly pro-gay acknowledge this fact.  Gays routinely threaten violence against those who don’t agree with them.

Nazism has its philosophical roots in philosophical worldviews that abandoned truth.  And once truth is dismissed as a possibility, anything and everything is allowed to fill the void.  And homosexuals have that in common with the Nazis, in that the philosophical systems they cling to abandon any and all notion of “truth” as held by classical foundationalism.  It really is no surprise that the two (homosexuality and Nazism) would be so inextricably inter-connected.  I documented this (liberal) philosophical worldview in depth six years ago as Obama was getting elected and these people have obviously become even worse since then.  There are so many examples of it happening it is beyond unreal.

Back on November 22, 2008 I wrote this article: Gay Rights Groups Using Vile Intimidation Tactics To Attack Prop 8 Backers

These people are true fascists.  They are identical to the Nazis – especially the homosexual Nazis who BEGAN Nazism in the first place.

And with that, here we are, detailing AGAIN how homosexuals act identically with NAZIS as they clearly haven’t changed one damn bit, have they?

MSNBC Panel Members Find ‘Disturbing Level’ of Gay Rights Interest in ‘Targeting People’
By Brad Wilmouth | April 19, 2014 | 16:27

On the Friday, April 18, All In show, during a discussion of the firing of former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich for simply donating to a political campaign opposing same-sex marriage, guest Richard Kim of the far left The Nation magazine intoned that he found it “disturbing” that gay activist friends of his have expressed interest in “targeting” more people who have made similar donations, and who have declared they should “find out where they live.” Kim:

Here’s a disturbing thing. I did ask some of my gay activist friends, I was like, “Look, here’s a list; 6,500 people gave the same amount that he did or more in California. Should we go down the list and sort of start targeting all these people?” And I asked this facetiously, and people were like, “Let’s do it. Let’s find out where those people live. It’s all-” To me, that’s a disturbing level of targeting people.

Hayes, who had earlier expressed reservations about Eich’s firing, exclaimed, “Yes,” to Kim’s view that such talk was “disturbing.”

As he brought up the discussion, the MSNBC host seemed skeptical of the former Mozilla CEO’s firing: “And there was part of me that did not know how to feel about how this whole thing unfolded.”

A bit later, as panel member and MSNBC host Karen Finney defended the practice of pressuring company heads about their political views, Hayes brought up President Obama’s previous history of opposing same-sex marriage. Hayes: “Barack Obama in 2008 was opposed to marriage equality.”

Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Friday, April 18, All In with Chris Hayes on MSNBC, with critical portions in bold:

CHRIS HAYES: So here’s the other interesting part of this, and I want to use this to segue to the Brendan Eich story because what you hear and see here are changing social norms, right? It is legal in South Carolina to fire someone because they’re gay. Increasingly, that is not viewed as socially acceptable, right? And rightly so. We agree everyone at the table agrees that is wrong.

But, now, there’s also social norms about whether it is socially acceptable to have the belief that gay folks can’t get married or to oppose gay equality. And this came to a head in the tale of Brendan Eich, who was the CEO of the firm, Mozilla, which makes a very popular Web browser. People found out that he had given a contribution to the wrong side in Prop 8, which was the anti-equality side. It was in a public record.

And there was a campaign that basically got rid of him, basically saying this is an unacceptable view for the CEO of a major firm to have. And there was part of me that did not know how to feel about how this whole thing unfolded. What was your thinking?

RICHARD KIM, THE NATION: Yeah, so I, first of all, say I don’t think anybody’s rights were violated.

HAYES: Nobody has a right to be a CEO.

KIM: Right, exactly, exactly. I do, on the level of proportion, question this. So this guy gave one $1,000 donation six years ago to a campaign that 7 million Californians voted for, that 6,500 people gave a donation at his level or higher. Mozilla has an anti-gay discrimination policy. He had no intent to change that. Marriage in California is settled law.

So there’s a question of whether or not all the sort of fury targeted at him and this one sort of, you know, attempt to oust him is in proportion to any threat that he represents to gay people in the future.

CATHY HENNA, LGBT ACTIVIST: It’s somehow, it’s how the culture works, too. This is a major tech company in Northern California, and, you know, as we were talking about before, you know, this is not just about gay people anymore. This is about allies. I mean, the second this went on social media, on Facebook, on Twitter, people just find this unacceptable. It’s no longer acceptable to be anti-gay.

HAYES: But did they find it unacceptable, there was a weird kind of advertising of one’s own enlightenment that this was part of. You know what I mean? It felt to me a little bit like, “I can like this, I can get behind this because this is a kind of, it’s no skin off my back, you know? Like, I don’t care who the CEO of Mozilla is.” And this shows — that’s what conservatives were saying, right? Conservatives were saying that this is basically hounding people, this is totally “il-liberal.”

HENNA: (INAUDIBLE) -to say that when it works for them because what their big thing is, “Oh, it’s about the free market.” Well, in this case it was the free market. People are making decisions about what they do and what they buy and what the organizations and the companies they support and the decisions they make as consumers voting with their wallets based on the leadership of those companies.

KAREN FINNEY, MSNBC HOST: It’s the little bit of power that we have as consumers. And you hear Karl Rove and the right wing. What do they always say about the companies that give to right-wing causes. We don’t want to have to publish our names. They’re afraid of a backlash. Well, guess what: I can decide I don’t want to spend my money at, with your company if I don’t approve how you spend that money. I can decide-

HAYES: Barack Obama in 2008 was opposed to marriage equality.

FINNEY: And he still got elected, you know, that’s the process.

HAYES: The point, but this guy gave them-

KIM: Here’s a disturbing thing. I did ask some of my gay activist friends, I was like, “Look, here’s a list; 6,500 people gave the same amount that he did or more in California. Should we go down the list and sort of start targeting all these people?” And I asked this facetiously, and people were like, “Let’s do it. Let’s find out where those people live. It’s all-” To me, that’s a disturbing level-

HAYES: Yes.

KIM: -of targeting people.

FINNEY:  But is part of it because Prop 18 is so, it became such a heated issue in this country, and it sort of became, I think, and it is a sort of either you’re on the right side or the wrong side, and, ironically, even the lawyer in the case has been evolving as he’s planning his daughter’s wedding.

I defy you liberals to show me ONE case of a corporate board firing their CEO because he gave money to the “No on Prop 8” campaign.  Because that never happened.  Only the LEFT is capable of that kind of rabid fascist intolerance.

In the same vein, show me ONE case of “Yes on 8” supporters viciously targeting their opponents the way the homosexual liberals did.

Who has been caught over and over and over again being rabidly intolerant of allowing people to have free speech?  The left.  Who routinely shouts down speakers if they don’t agree with those speakers to prevent ideas from being presented?  The left.  Who obeys the dog whistle whenever it is blown by chanting slogans rather than engaging in debate?  The left.  Who has been caught over and over again attempting to indoctrinate students in what amount to unhinged political rants in college/university classrooms (hell, this garbage happens all the damn time – here’s another one) and even in public elementary schools?  The left.  Who actually used the IRS as a thug ideological force to punish people with whom they politically disagreed?  The left.  Who systematically suppresses journalists?  The left.  The left is simply and purely intrinsically fascist.

Do you want to know which side routinely “outs” homosexuals publicly?  The left.  You see, certain homosexuals have decided that outing homosexuals is “a moral act, a means to prevent gays from participating in their own oppression.”

That is the essence of who these people are: YOU don’t have any rights; THEY have all the rights.  You have the right to sit down and shut up while they impose their agenda on you.  And if you don’t like it, they’ll come after you with a viciousness and a rabid hate that is beyond stunning.

The thing about the left is that they are pathologically incapable of seeing themselves for what they truly are.  They are your classic projectionists: the more rabidly intolerant they become, the more they project their own viciousness onto their enemies.  And since these people are true fascists, and with true fascists the end always justifies the means, this rabid hate and intolerance that is THEIRS but which they hypocritically project onto their opponents “justifies” them to be more and more evil and use any and every means to attack.

And just like the brutal Nazi stormtrooper thugs who used every tactic to ensure that their opponents were intimidated – if not physically beaten – into silence, the homosexual left is showing that they are the same damn Nazis they were in the 1930s.

 

For Liberals, ‘Productive’ Politics Equals FASCIST Politics

It’s interesting.

I came across this headline and subheading yesterday in the Los Angeles Times: “112th Congress is one of the least productive in years: Fervent partisanship and the standoff over the debt limit are partly to blame for lack of action in the Senate and House.”

I thought about the implications of that.  And the sheer moral stupidity.

Imagine my friends and I are running your family’s lives.  And I assure you, “Don’t worry.  Every single hour we’re going to come out with new laws and new regulations and new requirements for you.  Every hour, on the hour, we’ll make it so you’ve got to do something you haven’t been doing, or you’ve got to quit doing something that you have been doing, or else we’ll punish you.  Because, after all, we want to be productive.”

I can hear you liberals cheering now: “Yay!  Ya!  Someone else is going to take over my useless idiot life!  I don’t have to think or be responsible for myself any more!  Thank you, Big Brother!  Thank you!”

As for those of you with moral intelligence, you would be appalled.

But that’s exactly what “being productive” means to the Los Angeles Times and to the cockroach army of liberalism.

As for me, my usual thought is this: “All we need is one more stupid law.”

As of the last count I could find, the U.S. tax code had ballooned to 71,684 pages in length.  Now THAT is productivity!!!

Rush Limbaugh had the following to say in his radio program.  I want you to note that it’s the same exact liberal script being applied:

Democrat Policies Aim to Shut Down America’s Private Sector
July 1, 2011

RUSH: Minnesota state government is closed. The Minnesota state government shut down at midnight last night, the victim “of an ongoing dispute over taxes and spending between Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton and Republican legislative majorities. Talks fell apart well before the deadline, leaving state parks closed on the brink of the Fourth of July weekend.” Oh, the tears.  You see how this works? Evil Republicans, state parks are closed, the little kiddies don’t get to have their snow cones and the sleigh rides, oh, no, no Fourth of July, evil Republicans.

The AP says that the shutdown in Minnesota puts road projects at a standstill, forcing thousands of state worker layoffs, and, of course, all of which we’re supposed see as a taste of the horrors the nation will face if the federal debt ceiling is not raised by Congress. That’s how all of this works.  For the record the AP has already rewritten this article and they’ve given it a new headline. The first headline was: “Some Noticeable Casualties After Minnesota Shutdown.” The new headline: “Minnesota Shutdown Prompts Political Blame Game.” And naturally the blame falls on the Republicans.

But the whole purpose of this story is to set the stage for what will happen if we don’t raise the debt ceiling in the whole country. The whole federal government will shut down, oh, the horrors of it all. And again, note what the AP highlights here as the things that are gonna suffer: funding for the state zoo, the Capitol, child care assistance for the poor.  Meanwhile, critical functions like state troopers, prison guards, the courts and disaster responses will continue, which should give the Minnesota legislature a pretty good idea what can be safely cut. But the newly elected Democrat governor insists on defying the newly elected Republican majority. It’s historic, by the way, in Minnesota, in both houses, the Minnesota legislature, Governor Dayton would rather shut down that state than consider any spending cuts.

What he wants to do is raise taxes on all those rich people who make more than $180,000 a year, meaning just about every small business owner in the state. And as usual, the AP hopes that Republican moderates will come forward to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Never mind that a record 600 statehouse seats went from Democrat to Republican in the midterm election last November precisely because most people decided their taxed enough already. TEA: taxed enough already. You couldn’t have a greater contrast.  Virginia is one of the highest performing states in the country, a Republican governor. What do you have here in Minnesota? A Democrat governor says achievers in his state are not paying their fair share. A Democrat governor, a Democrat president have reached the same conclusion. Job creators should do with less. It’s gotta be tough living in a blue state if you experience success. You got a governor, you got a president reaching into your pocket.

If these guys get their way, America is Greece, only much, much bigger. But here’s the thing. The Minnesota government may have shut down, but Minnesota hasn’t. Minnesota has not shut down. The private sector is gonna be open for business. The private sector is going to be making sales, paying taxes. If you really want to shut down a state, have the private sector go on strike. That’s when a state shuts down. That’s when the tax revenues begin to shut off.  If you want to shut down a state, if you want to shut down a country, then you take direct aim at the producers and the achievers, and that’s what liberal Democrats are doing. Barack Obama and these blue state governors treat the private sector like indentured servants. They’re parasites. As if they won’t pick up and move and leave to avoid all these onerous taxes and regulations. Every tax increase is an incentive to relocate or move assets. Ask Amazon.com.

California said, “You know what, we’re gonna start demanding sales tax on anything Amazon sells in California.” Amazon said, “Okay, bye-bye, California.” Again, the dynamic reaction to an onerous policy. Now, what do the achievers get for paying more taxes at the state and federal level? What do they get?  The people who make the golden goose golden, what do they get? Food stamps, public sector union salaries, benefits, dues, and pensions that far exceed anything seen in the private sector. That’s what they end up paying for and people have had it. They don’t want anymore of it.

If you want the “productivity” of fascism, vote Democrat.  When Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the overwhelmingly Democrat House of Representatives and Harry Reid and the filibuster-proof Senate were marching in goose-step, we got ALL KINDS of productivity.  We got a stimulus costing Americans and their progeny $3.27 TRILLION that was promised to dramatically reduce unemployment.  2 1/2 years later, it is higher than it was (7.6%) when George Bush left office.  Oh, and they socialized 1/6th of the economy and brought it under “productive” government control.

And, yes, that naked fascist power grab is the quintessence of “productivity” to a liberal.

Until Obama is driven out of office as the disgrace he is, the best possible thing the American people can hope for is a government that can’t hurt us the way it already has.

Until then, “productivity” will be measured in terms of how many new food stamp recipients we’ve added.

 

Hitler Wasn’t ‘Right Wing’, Wasn’t ‘Christian’; And Nazism Was Applied Darwinism

Glenn Beck’s program on Friday, September 24, 2010, was devoted to the subject of Adolf Hitler, Christianity, and the nightmare that ensues when big government seizes religion in order to legitimize, even divinize, its socialist and totalitarian policies.

I have written about this myself, mostly in responses to atheists who want to foist Adolf Hitler onto Christians and Christianity.  I have grown up reading that Nazism represented the threat of a conservative, right wing government.  It’s a giant load of bunk.

To put it briefly, the communist Soviet intellectuals – and all leftist Western intellectuals influenced by them – created a false dichotomy between fascism and communism.  Zeev Sternhall observed how study of fascist ideology had been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism” [Sternhall, “Fascist Ideology,” in Fascism: A Reader’s Guide: Analyses, Interpretations, Bibliography, p. 316].  Marxism simply redefined fascism as its polar opposite in order to create a bogeyman: If Marxism was progressive, fascism became conservative.  If Marxism was left wing, fascism had to be right wing.  If Marxism championed the proletariat, then fascism had to champion the bourgeoisie.  If Marxism was socialist, fascism needed to be capitalist.  And the fact that none of the above was even remotely true was entirely beside the point.

“Nazi” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party.”

As Gene Edward Veith points out:

“The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism.  Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism.  Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity.  [And in fact, Both movements were “revolutionary socialist ideologies.”  Going on,] Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie.  Both attacked the conservatives.  Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers.  Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty.  [And finally,] Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left.  They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].

And if the Nazis didn’t represent the far left, they were at best the right wing of the extreme left wing.

Jaroslav Krejci demonstrated the inadequacy of the “unilinear imagery” of left wing versus right wing.  He pointed out that the metaphor derived from the seating arrangements of the French Parliament  following the Revolution.  Politically, those seated on the right side favored an absolute monarchy.  Economically, they favored government monopolies and a controlled economy.  Culturally, they favored authoritarian control of the people.  Those seated on the left favored democracy, a free market economy, and personal liberty [see Krejci, “Introduction: Concepts of Right and Left,” in Neo-Fascism in Europe, 1991, pp. 1-2, 7].

Gene Edward Veith points out that these models simply break down in 20th century politics [see Veith, Modern Fascism, p. 27].  In terms of the model above, American conservatives who want less government and trust the free market would be on the left.  Liberals who want more of a government-directed economy would be on the right.  And so, while the Nazis would be “right wing” on this model, so also would the American liberal.  Furthermore, the terms “liberal” and “conservative” are relative, depending upon what one has to conserve.  The classical liberals of the 19th century, with their pursuit of free-market economics and resistance to government control, became the conservatives of the 20th century as they sought to conserve these principles.

And, to quote myself:

And just what on earth do liberals who call Nazism a form of conservatism even think Hitler was trying to “conserve”?

Adolf Hitler was a violent revolutionary out to overthrow the current system and impose his own radically different system in its place.  He was hardly a “right wing conservative” in any way, shape, or form.  Rather, Adolf Hitler was, as Jonah Goldberg accurately described him in Liberal Fascism, a “man of the left.”

Further, many American leftists embrace communism as though that somehow precludes them from guilt – even though many of their ideas and actions have been objectively fascist in spite of their rhetoric.  But even aside from this fact, don’t forget that communism itself was the single most evil ideology in the history of human civilization.

Were Hitler and Nazism among the greatest evils in the history of the world?  Of course they were.  But actually, Hitler and his Nazism were only the third worse mass murderer in all human history, behind Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao, who were both communist leaders of officially state atheist governments.

With that said, let us discuss Hitler and Nazism in terms of Christianity.

Did Adolf Hitler package some of his public remarks as “Christian”?  There is no doubt that he did precisely that at different times his rise to power, and even during his regime.  But that hardly means that Adolf Hitler was a Christian believer.  Politicians often have had clear and obvious reasons to say things that they didn’t really believe for political expedience.  And it is obvious on its face that Adolf Hitler was a liar and the worst demagogic political opportunist in human history, and that Nazism was utterly evil and based almost entirely on lies. Thus, to cite the propaganda of such a regime as evidence that Hitler or Nazism were somehow “Christian” is itself both sick and evil.

Germany had at one time been the seat of the Protestant Reformation.  But by the late 19th century Christianity in Germany had devolved into a near meaningless official state religion.  And Germany was the LEAST Christian nation in all of Europe.  The most prominent German theologians embraced a form of theological liberalism that disconnected the foundational elements of Christianity from historical fact, in what amounted to a sustained attack on the Holy Bible.  The school of “higher criticism” attempted to undercut traditional views about the authorship, composition and legitimacy of the Bible.  This project weakened biblical authority by assuming that the Biblical text and the events described were to be explained entirely in naturalistic terms, and rejected completely the possibility of supernatural revelation.  And it was almost entirely an undertaking of German scholarship (just look at the names: Eichhorn, De Wette, Wellhausen).

The Germany that voted for Adolf Hitler was influenced by an academic elite that had a total hatred for orthodox Christianity.

Given the state of our own university intelligentsia, one of Hitler’s more terrifying comments is this:

“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf Hitler, 1930

And so, yes, Hitler tried to package his Nazism in a way that superficially “Christian” Germany would accept, just as the Marxist Sandinistas deceitfully packaged their godless communism into “liberation theology” in order to deceive the overwhelmingly Catholic population of Nicaragua to support them.  As to the latter, the Catholic church said from the start that it wasn’t legitimate Christianity; but that it was a heresy. And the Cardinal Ratzinger who went on to become Pope Benedict even called the movement “demonic”.

Quote:

“…it would be illusory and dangerous to ignore the intimate bond which radically unites them (liberation theologies), and to accept elements of the Marxist analysis without recognizing its connections with the (Marxist) ideology, or to enter into the practice of the class-struggle and of its Marxist interpretation while failing to see the kind of totalitarian society to which this process slowly leads.”
— (Author: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect, now Pope Benedict XVI; written in 1984)

Quote:

“Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic.” — Pope Benedict XVI

And Hitler also packaged his hard-core of Nazism with a candy-coating of lies in order to fool the people. And the people were fooled indeed:

….Any opposition to Hitler is ruthlessly eradicated.  Tens of thousands are imprisoned.  Journalist Stephan Laurent dared to criticize The Fuehrer…..

“I am writing this from cell 24. Outside a new Germany is being created. Many millions are rejoicing.  Hitler is promising everyone precisely what they want. I think when they wake to their sobering senses, they will find they have been led by the nose and duped by lies.”

Soon, the next wave of profoundly anti-Christian German scholarship took the next logical step in their attack against Judeo-Christian ideals which had stood for two millennium.  Friedrich Delitzsch, a biblical scholar from the University of Berlin, published a work arguing that the Old Testament published a book arguing that the entire Old Testament was dependent upon Babylonian culture and mythology.  Delitzsch concluded that:

“the Old Testament was full of deceptions of all kinds – a veritable hodge-podge of erroneous, incredible, undependable figures, including those of Biblical chronology…. in short, a book full of intentional and unintentional deceptions (in part, self-deceptions), a very dangerous book in the use of which the greatest care is necessary.”

But it soon becomes clear that the reason that Delitzsch believed the Old Testament was “a very dangerous book” was because it was Jewish, and Delitzsch was an anti-Semite first, and a scholar second.  Delitzsch went so far as to argue the plain historical fraud that Jesus was not Jewish, arguing that there was some difference between “Jews” and “Galileans.”  He also maintained an equally bogus distinction between Jesus as a warm humanitarian versus Jewish moral intolerance.  Thus Delitzsch “de-Judaized” Christianity, and “contended that Christianity was an absolutely new religion, totally distinct from that of the Old Testament” [See Gene Edward Veith, Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 53-54].

And so it became an easy next-step for Nazi propagandists such as Ezra Pound (who is also known as the godfather of modernism) to state that the Jewish religion began when Moses, “having to keep a troublesome rabble in order, scared them by inventing a disagreeable bogie, which he called a god.”  And Pound concluded “the greatest tyrannies have arisen from the dogma that the theos is one, or that there is a unity above the various strata of theos which imposes its will upon the substrata, and thence upon human individuals.”

And Adolf Hitler could then state in his Mein Kampf that:

“The objection may very well be raised that such phenomena in world history [the necessity of intolerance] arise for the most part from specifically Jewish modes of thought, in fact, that this type of intolerance and fanaticism positively embodies the Jewish nature” [Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 454].

The chain began by German scholars was complete: Hitler argued that it was okay to be intolerant of intolerant people, and that the Jews literally epitomized intolerance.

And none of this was “Christian”; it was a project straight from hell.

Friedrich Nietzsche – a patron saint of Nazism – correctly pointed out the fact that:

“Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, of privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion part excellence” [Nietzsche, “The Twilight of the Idols”].

And so, a good Nazi was a Gottglaubiger.  Rather than putting “Christian” on personnel forms they wrote down “Gottlaubig” – representing a “vague pseudo-philosophical religiosity” – to indicate that, while they were not “godless communists,” they were most certainly not “Christian.”

So Hitler publicly said what he needed to say in speeches to deceive a mass population who had been bombarded with anti-Christian heresy and anti-Christian anti-Semitism, to bend them to his will.  But to his inner circle he said very different things than what he said publicly.  Hitler described to them that “after difficult inner struggles I had freed myself of my remaining childhood religious conceptions. I feel as refreshed now as a foal on a meadow” (Ernst Helmreich, “The German Churches Under Hitler,” p. 285).

What else did those closest in Hitler’s inner circle say about his “Christianity”?

From Joseph Goebbels’ diary, dated 8 April 1941 (Tue):

“The Fuhrer is a man totally attuned to antiquity. He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity. According to Schopenhauer, Christianity and syphilis have made humanity unhappy and unfree. What a difference between the benevolent, smiling Zeus and the pain-wracked, crucified Christ. The ancient peoples’ view of God was also much nobler and more humane than the Christians’. What a difference between a gloomy cathedral and a light, airy ancient temple. He describes life in ancient Rome: clarity, greatness, monumentality. The most wonderful republic in history. We would feel no disappointment, he believes, if we were now suddenly to be transported to this old, eternal city.”

Goebbels also notes in a diary entry in 1939 a conversation in which Hitler had “expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity.” [Elke Frölich. 1997-2008. Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels. Munich: K. G. Sauer. Teil I, v. 6, p. 272].

Hitler also said, “Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.” [Hitler’s Table Talk, Enigma Books; 3rd edition October 1, 2000, p. 343].

Author Konrad Heiden quoted Hitler as stating, “We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany.” [Heiden, Konrad A History of National Socialism, A.A. Knopf, 1935, p. 100].

Albert Speer – another Nazi who worked extremely closely with Hitler – reports in his memoirs of a similar statement made by Hitler:

“You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” [Albert Speer. 1971. Inside the Third Reich Translated by Richard Winston, Clara Winston, Eugene Davidson. New York: Macmillan. p 143; Reprinted in 1997. Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs. New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 96. ISBN 0-684-82949-5].

Adolf Hitler sounds like an atheist to me. Certainly, Hitler was absolutely not a Christian. He cynically used Christianity like he cynically used everything else that was good; he took ruthless advantage of it as simply another means by which to package his lies to the German people.

The fact of the matter is that Fascism and Nazism were quintessentially hostile to Christianity, and even to monotheism.

Hannah Arendt describes Nazi spirituality in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem:

When convicted Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann went to the gallows, “He was in complete command of himself, nay, he was more; he was completely himself. Nothing could have demonstrated this more convincingly than the grotesque silliness of his last words. He began by stating emphatically that he was a Gottglaubiger, to express in common Nazi fashion that he was no Christian and did not believe in life after death” [p. 252].

One of the leading experts on fascism, Ernst Nolte, defined fascism as “the practical and violent resistance to transcendence” [Nolte, Three Faces of Fascism: Action Francaise, Italian Fascism, Nazi Fascism, 1965, p. 429].  Fascism was anti-God, anti-supernatural and anti-transcendence.

Gene Edward Veith says:

“It is particularly important to know, precisely, why the Nazis hated the Jews. Racism alone cannot explain the virulence of Nazi anti-Semitism. What did they see in the Jews that they thought was so inferior? What was the Jewish legacy that, in their mind, so poisoned Western culture? What were the Aryan ideals that the Nazis sought to restore, once the Jews and their influence were purged from Western culture?

The fascists aligned themselves not only against the Jews but against what the Jews contributed to Western civilization. A transcendent God, who reveals a transcendent moral law, was anathema to the fascists” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 13].

By killing the Jews, Hitler intended to kill the God of the Bible.

Of Protestant Christianity, Hitler wrote:

“Protestantism… combats with the greatest hostility any attempt to rescue the nation from the embrace of its most mortal enemy, since its attitude toward the Jews just happens to be more or less dogmatically established. Yet here we are facing the question without whose solution all other attempts at a German reawakening or resurrection are and remain absolutely senseless and impossible” (Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 113).

Hitler talked about solving the “church problem” after he’d solved the “Jewish problem.” He said:

“The war is going to be over. The last great task of our age will be to solve the church problem. It is only then that the nation will be wholly secure” (Hitler’s Tabletalk, December 1941).

Hitler boasted that “I have six divisions of SS composed of men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. It doesn’t prevent them from going to their deaths with serenity in their souls.”

Martin Bormann, head of the Party Chancellery and private secretary of the Fuhrer, said pointedly:

“National socialist and Christian concepts cannot be reconciled. The Christian churches build on the ignorance of people and are anxious so far as possible to preserve this ignorance in as large a part of the populace as possible; only in this way can the Christian churches retain their power. In contrast, national socialism rests on scientific foundations” (cited in Ernst Helmreich, The German Churches Under Hitler, p. 303).

At a Nazi rally a speaker proclaimed: “Who was greater, Christ or Hitler? Christ had at the time of his death twelve apostles, who, however, did not even remain true to him. Hitler, however, today has a folk of 70 million behind him. We cannot tolerate that another organization [i.e., the church] is established alongside of us that has a different spirit than ours. We must crush it. National socialism in all earnestness says: I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

Nazism was pagan to its very core. Carl Jung (a onetime fascist sympathizer himself) described Nazism as the revival of Wotan, who had been suppressed by Christianity but now was released. Germany was being possessed by its archetypal god. (Odajnyk, Jung and Politics, p. 87-89). The Farmer’s Almanac of 1935, published by the Ministry of Agriculture, replaced the Christian holidays with commemoration days for Wotan and Thor. And Good Friday was replaced with a memorial for those killed by Charlemagne in his efforts to convert the Saxons.

In addition, at the very heart of the Nazi’s race programs and at the center of the Holocaust was the belief in atheistic Darwinian evolution. The principle rationale for the Holocaust was that the Jews were biologically inferior, and interfered with the Nazi scientists’ efforts to aid evolution by creating a master race.

Listen to these words and tell me who wrote them:

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

It was none other than Charles Darwin himself (Darwin, C.R., “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” [1871], John Murray: London, 1874, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.241-242).  Charles Darwin literally predicted that someone would come along and extend his Darwinism to its logical conclusion – and thus literally predicted both the Holocaust AND the motivations FOR the Holocaust.

Charles Darwin spake as a prophet, and Adolf Hitler was the messiah who fulfilled the demonic prophecy.

But it wasn’t just the Jew that Hitler was willing to exterminate as being “biologically inferior.”  Adolf Hitler – who had made the Holocaust of the “biologically unfit” and “sub human” Jew the centerpiece of his campaign to create a “Master” Aryan race – ultimately made his “master race” the victim of his hateful Darwinian views:

“If the German Volk is not strong enough and is not sufficiently prepared to offer its own blood for its existence, it should cease to exist and be destroyed by a stronger power.”

How is that not the World War II that Adolf Hitler started not being explained into a test of Darwinism that the German people had to pass to justify their existence?  The simple FACT of the matter is this: that Adolf Hitler thought in entirely Darwinian terms.  He decreed the Jew had failed the test of Darwinism, and believed that if the German people could not prevail in his war that THEY TOO should be exterminated.

Why is this so?

Gene Edward Veith points out that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection had implications far beyond biology.  What must be true for nature must likewise be true for the individual and society.  If nature progresses by competition, struggle, and the victory of the strong over the weak, then clearly all progress must come the same way (unless we are not part of the natural system, which would mean that we were the product of divine Creation).  According to Zeev Sternhall, social Darwinism in Nazi Germany “stripped the human personality of its sacramental dignity.  It made no distinction between the physical life and the social life, and conceived of the human condition in terms of an unceasing struggle, whose natural outcome was the survival of the fittest” [Sternhall, “Fascist Ideology,” in Fascism: A Reader’s Guide: Analyses, Interpretations, Bibliography, p. 322].

Similarly, Sternhall pointed out how scientific positivism “felt the impact of social Darwinism, and underwent a profound change.  In the latter half of the [19th]century its emphasis on deliberate and rational choice as the determining factor in human behavior gave way to new notions of heredity, race, and environment” [Sternhall, 322].

“Nazism was ‘applied biology,’ stated Hitler deputy Rudolf Hess.”

Nazism was also a direct attack against Christianity and Christian humanity.

Friedrich Nietzsche blamed Christianity, which he described as a creation of the Jews, for the denial of life that was represented in Christian morality.  Gene Edward Veith points out that, in his attack on Judeo-Christian morality, Nietzsche:

“attacked the Christian value of love.  Notions of compassion and mercy, he argued, favor the weak and the unfit, thereby breeding more weakness.  Nature is less sentimental, but ultimately kinder, in allowing the weak to die off.  The ideals of Christian benevolence cause the unfit to flourish, while those who are fit are burdened by guilt and are coerced by the moral system to serve those who are beneath them” [Veith, Modern Fascism, p. 82].

Nietzsche, epitomizing the spirit of Darwinism as applied to ethics, wrote:

We are deprived of strength when we feel pity … Pity makes suffering contagious….  Pity crosses the law of development, which is nature’s law of selection.  It preserves what is right for destruction; it defends those who have been disinherited and condemned by life; and by the abundance of the failures of all kinds which it keeps alive, it gives life itself a gloomy and questionable aspect” [Nietzsche, “The Antichrist”].

In short, the Christian ethic of compassion is a kind of sentimentality that violates the laws of nature, in which the strong thrive and the weak die out.

Speaking of this new, Nazi, anti-Christian, Darwinian view of morality and ethics, Reichmaster Alfred Rosenberg said:

“Justice is what the Aryan man deems just.  Unjust is what he so deems” [Alfred Rosenberg, as quoted in Victor Farias, Heidegger and Nazism, 1989, pp. 205-206].

“Justice” for the Jew according to the Aryan mind possessed by Darwinism meant extermination as racially inferior and biological unfit to exist.

Thus, whatever you might want to say about whether Hitler was an atheist or not, his Nazism was inherently opposed to Judeo-Christianity, opposed to Judeo-Christian monotheism, and opposed to Judeo-Christian transcendent morality. The spirituality that resulted was intrinsically pagan, and inherently anti-Christ and anti-Christian.

And in stark contrast to Adolf Hitler’s big government totalitarian Nazi atheism, here’s what our religious founding father’s believed:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

A 1954 Air Force Training Manuel had this commentary on these great words which founded the greatest nation in the history of the world:

“The idea uppermost in the minds of men who founded the United States was that each and every human being was important. They were convinced that the importance of the individual did not come from any grant of the state, that the importance of the individual did not come from any position that he had achieved nor from any power he had acquired nor from any wealth he had amassed.

“They knew that the importance of man came from the very source of his life. Because man was made in the image and likeness of God, he had a destiny to achieve. And because he had a destiny to achieve, he had the inalienable right and the inherent freedom to achieve it” (FTAF Manual 50-1).

Thus the question, “If God doesn’t exist, who issues rights to man?” becomes profoundly important.  Because the answer is, “Whoever has the power to issue those rights.”

It becomes the State which issues rights to man. And, welcome to come and crush the human spirit, next dictator.

Postscript: you can go here to see how this question about who issues rights to man is becoming increasingly important right here in the USA.

The Proof Of Planned Health Care Rationing And Denial Of Care To Senior Citizens

People are being told that the crowds of people who are going to town halls to angrily protest the Democrat health care plan are “un-American” as well as being swastika-carrying fascists.  It is terribly malicious and hateful demagoguery.  It is amazing that Democrats demonize tactics that they themselves are pursuing and have been pursuing for YEARS.  And then we come to learn that not only are Democrats organizing, but they are in fact literally PAYING people to show up and fight for the Democrat health care plan.  Talk about “manufactured outrage“!!!

The Speaker of the House decided to make this a debate about who is more Nazi.  I welcome that argument.  Just look at the Democrats’ own tactics!

But there is a far deeper issue at stake when we talk about “Nazism” than mere political rhetoric.  There is a very real issue of life and death at stake.

Mike Sola angrily confronted his Congressman over his fear that the Democrat system would not cover his son, who is in a wheelchair suffering from cerebral palsy.  He has since received death threats and vandalism at his home from Democrat supporters.

Should people fear for their lives under ObamaCare?  Should people like Mike Sola fear for their loved ones’ lives?

Let’s get away from the rhetoric, and reflect on the words of key Obama health care architects.

Consider a New York Post article:

Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free. “Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely ‘lipstick’ cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change,” he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).

Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, “as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others” (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

Yes, that’s what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they’ll tell you that a doctor’s job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

Emanuel, however, believes that “communitarianism” should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia” (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. ’96).

Translation: Don’t give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson’s or a child with cerebral palsy.

So, yeah.  Mike Sola has every right to be fearful of what will happen to his son.  Just as I have every reason to be afraid of what will happen to my parents.

When Dr. Emanuel says “communitarianism,” it is impossible for me – given the man’s writings – not to think “communist” plus “totalitarianism.”

And Obama appointed this man.  How can he distance himself from a guy who he himself appointed?  As Glenn Beck put it, “I wouldn’t let these people bring me a can of Coke, much less allow them to write a national health care plan.”

In January of THIS YEAR, Dr. Emanuel – who is a principal architect of the Democrat’s health care plan – wrote:

“When implemented, the Complete Lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated… The Complete Lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value.”

“Attenuated” means, “to make thin; to weaken or reduce in force, intensity, effect, quantity, or value.”  Attenuated care would be reduced or lessened care.  Dare I say it, in this context it clearly means, “rationed care.”

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel included a chart with his work (available here), which shows how he wants to allocate medical resources under a government plan:

When you’re very young, or when you start reaching your 50s and 60s, you start receiving less and less priority.

Take Cass Sunstein, Obama’s Regulatory Czar, who wrote in the Columbia Law Review in January 2004:

“I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.”

Barack Obama’s Regulatory Czar explains:

“If a program would prevent fifty deaths of people who are twenty, should it be treated the same way as a program that would prevent fifty deaths of people who are seventy? Other things being equal, a program that protects young people seems far better than one that protects old people, because it delivers greater benefits.”

Which very much jives with what Obama told a woman concerning her mother:

“At least we can let doctors know — and your mom know — that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller.”

As I wrote in my last article, “Don’t let the coffin lid hit your face on the way out, Grandma and Grandpa.”

Incredibly, that’s not all.  There are other writings that President Obama’s appointed architect Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel have said.  I thank Jeff Head for bringing his own blog citing other statements by Emanuel to my attention:

Is the “Final Solution” wording that was added to this revamped Obama Health Care graphic warranted? Some might see it as a simple play on words.

But before you decide how to consider that wording, please read the following shocking quotes from Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the chief health-care policy adviser to President Barack Hussein Obama, and (not coincidentally) the brother of Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.

From: Principles of allocation of scarce medical interventions, January 31, 2009
Also see: Deadly Doctors, New York Post, June 24, 2009

“Strict youngest-first allocation directs scarce resources predominantly to infants. This approach seems incorrect. The death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a 2-month-old girl, even though the baby has had less life. The 20-year-old has a much more developed personality than the infant, and has drawn upon the investment of others to begin as-yet-unfulfilled projects…. Adolescents have received substantial substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments…. It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies, and worse still when an adolescent does.”

“Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years. Treating 65-year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.”

“Ultimately, the complete lives system does not create ‘classes of Untermenschen whose lives and well being are deemed not worth spending money on,’ but rather empowers us to decide fairly whom to save when genuine scarcity makes saving everyone impossible.”

“When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated”

“Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda. If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration’s health-reform effort.”

From: Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008

“Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others”

From: Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008

“Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely ‘lipstick’ cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change,”

From: What Are the Potential Cost Savings from Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide? New England Journal of Medicine, July 1998

(These quotes add new context to the “End-of-Life” Counseling sessions required every 5 years for all seniors over 65 in Obama Care.)

“There is a widespread perception that the United States spends an excessive amount on high-technology health care for dying patients. Many commentators note that 27 to 30 percent of the Medicare budget is spent on the 5 percent of Medicare patients who die each year. They also note that the expenditures increase exponentially as death approaches, so that the last month of life accounts for 30 to 40 percent of the medical care expenditures in the last year of life. To many, savings from reduced use of expensive technological interventions at the end of life are both necessary and desirable.”

“Many have linked the effort to reduce the high cost of death with the legalization of physician-assisted suicide. One commentator observed: “Managed care and managed death [through physician-assisted suicide] are less expensive than fee-for-service care and extended survival. Less expensive is better.” Some of the amicus curiae briefs submitted to the Supreme Court expressed the same logic: “Decreasing availability and increasing expense in health care and the uncertain impact of managed care may intensify pressure to choose physician-assisted suicide” and “the cost effectiveness of hastened death is as undeniable as gravity. The earlier a patient dies, the less costly is his or her care.”

“Although the cost savings to the United States and most managed-care plans are likely to be small, it is important to recognize that the savings to specific terminally ill patients and their families could be substantial. For many patients and their families, especially but not exclusively those without health insurance, the costs of terminal care may result in large out-of-pocket expenses. Nevertheless, as compared with the average American, the terminally ill are less likely to be uninsured, since more than two thirds of decedents are Medicare beneficiaries over 65 years of age. The poorest dying patients are likely to be Medicaid beneficiaries. Extrapolating from the Medicare data, one can calculate that a typical uninsured patient, by dying one month earlier by means of physician-assisted suicide, might save his or her family $10,000 in health care costs, having already spent as much as $20,000 in that year.”

“Drawing on data from the Netherlands on the use of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide and on available U.S. data on costs at the end of life, this analysis explores the degree to which the legalization of physician-assisted suicide might reduce health care costs. The most reasonable estimate is a savings of $627 million, less than 0.07 percent of total health care expenditures.”

From: Where Civic Republicanism and Deliberative Democracy Meet, Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec.1996

“This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”

[….]

Do not fall for the platitudes and the revisionism or assurances of the people pushing this plan.  It is a radical plan and it will lead to single payer, complete governmental control of health care.  A command economy of health care much more akin to what someone like Karl Marx would implement to go hand and hand with his political philosophies.

The president, in a less-guarded moment before running for the Presidency outlined his true goals with respect to Health Care, and now he has the congress and the advisers he thinks will lead him there.

“I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we’ve got to take back the White House, we’ve got to take back the Senate, and we’ve got to take back the House.”

When you see “angry mobs” of Democrat health care plan opponents, realize that they aren’t angry because of “disinformation” or “fishy” emails; they are angry because of what they KNOW.  They are angry because of what Obama’s own architects have STATED.

Some of what we have seen here has far more in common with Dr. Mengele than with medicine.

The Nazis had a term, Lebensunwertes Leben, that meant “a life unworthy to be lived.”  The Nazi agenda was not about goose-stepping soldiers; it was about a complex of ideas that de-valued individual human life and exalted the power of the state to control the lives of the people.  And those who were deemed unable to produce sufficient societal benefit were deemed unworthy of life.  And the men who created this system did not regard themselves as evil men; they regarded themselves as doing what was necessary to implement their vision for their country.

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel would never agree that he is a Nazi.  He would point out that he is Jewish; how on earth could he be a Nazi?  But his plan comes right out of the heart of Nazi ideology; it is Lebensunwertes Leben rearing its ugly head all over again.  Does he want 6 million Jews to die?  Of course he doesn’t.  But my question is, “Does he not want 60 million senior citizens to die?” And the only difference is that he would prefer to kill them by neglect due to rationed medical care, or due to a more humane but every bit as evil death by suicide.

The Nazis’ “final solution” was to eliminate an alleged crisis by eliminating the Jews; Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel’s “final solution” is to eliminate an alleged crisis by eliminating unhealthy children and senior citizens.

And, again, if Barack Obama doesn’t want this vision himself, then why on earth did he appoint Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel – who has been arguing for this “Complete Lives program” for YEARS, and who has an article urging for it as late as January of THIS YEAR – to write large swaths of the health care bill?  And any of Obama’s protestations to the contrary only fly in the face of what he himself has said and what he himself has done.  Don’t trust him.

A video montage explains precisely how the Democrats have organized behind the scenes to use the currently-proposed plan to necessarily lead into the kind of system that will produce the kind of “care” outlined by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel above.

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and Cass Sunstein tell us what government health care will ultimately look like; and the video explains in Democrat health care strategists’ own words how they propose to get us to that point.

Watch it – and then join the fight against this monstrosity.